Humans have wiped out 60 percent of animals since 1970, says WWF

a reply to: GreenGunther

honestly lately I've nocticed a lot more birds, my back yard for one, had 2-3 different colored humming birds this year. I put out a few suck-u-lent feeders but it was nice to see, what I need is a high speed camera. Would be some good pics if taken right.

think of all the CO2 we have eliminated

what would " global warming " be likre now if all those creatures`were still pumping CO2 and methane into the atmosphere

PS - can i have the " carbon credit " - for the CO2` elimination - i did assist

Almost need a Logan’s Run approach. Anyone who thinks over population is a problem can go to carousel and the rest of us can cheer

Problem solved

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Almost need a Logan’s Run approach. Anyone who thinks over population is a problem can go to carousel and the rest of us can cheer

Problem solved

I could see that happening if people began to rebel against the Liberated snowflakes of America. Carousel,might intrigue them but I dunno.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

You shouldn't be sad because that's complete horse #. It is in their interest to make you feel bad so you'll donate to them. Good people are so gullible. Believe half of what you see and nothing that you hear I believe is the saying they're fits here.

Jaden

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

That's a pretty bold claim for the WWF to make, considering that in 2016 alone, 18,000 new species of flora, fauna, and microbes were discovered, and thousands upon thousands are discovered to have been existing along side of us each year.

Plus, the WWF literally reaps the rewards of such alarmist claims, so I call hyperbole at best, intentionally misleading statistics at worst.

OHHHHH, the story specifies "animals with a backbone," so the title of the link (and therefore your own title) is an outright lie.

That said, I agree with the claims about the issues with plastic pollution of our planet, but I'm so goddam tired of the hyperbole and half-truths surrounding this topic that it's just disgusting to behold anymore. Like others have noted, humans have a backbone, and the world population of humans has increased two-fold, from 3.7-billion to 7.5-billion.

How does that fit into the equation? And did they just conveniently leave out ALL OTHER ANIMALS (which include insects and other crawly things) in order to have an alarmist percentage to report?

Signs point to yes...and then let the donations roll in...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

well, it's declined dramatically in the towns and cities... nothing left.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Hmmm...yes, it has declined, but in my town, there are still plenty of possums, coyotes, foxes, bobcats, raccoons, deer (especially), frogs, snakes, rodents, birds, and farm animals all over the place. How that compares to before being settled, I have no idea.

What has declined to the point of non-existence anymore are cougars (catamounts, as they called them in this area back in the day). But that has just resulted in a massive overpopulation of deer and other woodland creatures that used to be preyed upon, so there is an imbalance due to man, for sure, but not mirrored in what the WWF is saying.

In cities like Cincinnati (just 20 minutes away), though, I would agree that in the urban areas for sure, there is a dramatic loss of or relocation of these animals. But cities like that--sprawling concrete jungles--are in the minority in America when it comes to square mileage of this nation, so there's that.

But to claim that there's "nothing left" in towns and cities is, once again, the alarmism and hyperbole that I was citing in my comment to which you replied. There are plenty of backboned animals left in cities and towns all across America, just not the larger kind that used to exist specifically in those locations.

sad …. but reality is that there is no place left for wildlive ore nature ...we humans are so superior that we need all the space for factory's who producing all things we actually do not need… but it makes money and thats all we care for…
solution for earth? extinction of human race !

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: SlapMonkey

well, it's declined dramatically in the towns and cities... nothing left.

Coons, possums, deer, rats, lizards, all manner of creepy crawlies, grackles, pigeons, parrots...too many to list, are thriving here in downtown Austin. Get out in the country and the wild pigs are out of control.

I never said the Earth won't continue. It will continue, there just won't be anything 'living' on it, except insects!

And then the insects evolve and oh look ... now we have more than insects again.

Isn't this what happened after the dinosaurs were wiped out?

originally posted by: skunkape23

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: SlapMonkey

well, it's declined dramatically in the towns and cities... nothing left.

Coons, possums, deer, rats, lizards, all manner of creepy crawlies, grackles, pigeons, parrots...too many to list, are thriving here in downtown Austin. Get out in the country and the wild pigs are out of control.

I live in a major metro suburb, we have snakes, birds, bugs, deer, raccoons, possums, foxes, wild turkeys, buzzards, hawks, bald eagles, box turtles, snapping turtles, rats and mice, groundhogs, squirrels, mountain lions have been spotted, coyotes ...

It's thriving out there.

Just to be clear: the general consensus at ATS is that we deny the Holocene extinction event has occurred/is ongoing and that, even if it is, we humans are not to blame for it?

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
Just to be clear: the general consensus at ATS is that we deny the Holocene extinction event has occurred/is ongoing and that, even if it is, we humans are not to blame for it?

We suggest that it had more to do with abrupt climate change caused by comet fragment impacts, rather than increased predation by humans, especially considering there was also a massive die-off of humans at that time too, leaving a much smaller number of people (armed only with stone tools) to kill off a huge number of animals.

Of course, as the human population recovered and they were smart enough to improve their weapons and hunting skills, we killed off a bunch of animals, and continue to do so. But even then, it's been more a matter of reducing species variety. There are certainly a lot more chickens, cows and horses than there ever were 10,000 years ago. And then there are pets. We love our pets and we own a lot of them.

If animals want to survive around humans, they gotta up their game and find more ways they can be useful to us.

a reply to: oloufo

And Socialism, Open Borders etc. Taxing Humans for environmental issues isn't the answer either.

The planet needs depopulation sooner or later. I say do it now peacefully before it's war, starvation, or disease. Pollution isn't the only factor affecting animals.

A large population needs lots of animals. Less graising and more factory farms. Farms where animals are tortured, endlessly without any hope.

Even pets are now being birthed in factory farm-like conditions.

It's too bad we can't pull a thanos (avenger movie) and zap half the population by random.

originally posted by: blueman12
It's too bad we can't pull a thanos (avenger movie) and zap half the population by random.

I'm sure somebody (probably a lot of somebodys) is working diligently on that.

a reply to: AtlasHawk

What's the awnser then? Hiring people like Scott pruit to deregulate EPA laws while getting tax payers to pay for $5000 office chairs and even more in other unimportant things?

Should we just ignore it all??

Let's just become like China. Who cares!

a reply to: Blue Shift

Hopefully

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
Just to be clear: the general consensus at ATS is that we deny the Holocene extinction event has occurred/is ongoing and that, even if it is, we humans are not to blame for it?

Well it's not like we have any evidence for it.

Oh.......wait..........